A la Carte Cable: Why Not?

Joseph Laszlo | February 09, 2006, 06:21 PM

I'm going to take issue with Todd's position on the whole a la carte programming debate. The FCC today has come out with a revised report on a la carte [pdf] that essentially savages the FCC's previous report, which said that a la carte was bad.

In short, the FCC now thinks it's good.

I'm not going to go too deeply into the FCC's old or new analysis...basically all those tell you is you can build an economic model to say anything you want it to, and I knew that already.

What I will say is that Todd's argument against a la carte based solely on the notion that it's somehow censorship if I get to stop paying for content I don't want and don't look at anyway doesn't fly with me. There are good reasons to oppose a la carte. This isn't one of them.

At the same time though I'd agree with Todd that all the arguments about a la carte being "good for the consumer" are beside the point. There was a time when the FCC did things that flew in the face of what telecommunications companies wanted, but that time is long past. So it's a safe assumption that this report exists because cable has come around on a la carte, and is willing to support it to at least some extent (like "family tiers" of service). The revised FCC report lets the FCC look pro-consumer while letting the cable industry do something it probably would've done anyway.

But it's also important to note that consumers do generally like a la carte a lot. 46% of consumers we surveyed said they'd switch TV provider to get a la carte programming (second only to "cheaper service"); the response jumped to 59% of those who said they were unhappy with their current provider. If a la carte gives consumers more of what they want and less of what they don't want, at a price they consider fair for that service (probably the big "if" here), then nothing else really matters.